CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think I'd choose this side because for me, it weighs the trustworthy than the untrustworthy.
As a historical reference, well, that is really one drawback of the Bible. Some of the events were not really accurate when you look at the history of the world. Also, other events in history were done of after the Bible was written.
As a spiritual reference, I think it helps Catholics like me in viewing my values in life. It also gives me sayings and learn from them. Like the 8 beatitudes, which gives me hope whenever I am down.
As an influence on mankind, I think the Bible also helps me in doing the things that I have to do. Like being nice to people even if they are not nice to you.
As a current and future asset, why not? If it helps people to be good to others then I think it could also be helpful.
As a spiritual reference: There is no lesson in Christianity that cannot be found in a secular fashion, and that without the prejudice, judgement, and slaughter that has accompanied the faith.
As an influence on mankind: Honestly, I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people. If you need a reason to do that then you could find it without holy scripture. Regardless, this has little to do with religion having a positive influence on mankind. If you look at the impact of religion on humanity you get the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquests, and a history plagued with discrimination and prejudice. Not to mention how much religion has held back science.
As a current and future asset: In my personal experience, far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others than use it to help themselves be good to others. I would also like to reiterate that there is no positive aspect that can be gained from the Bible and religion which cannot also be gained from a secular approach without the accompanying harms of religion.
not to mention how much religion has held back science
Not really. Science progresses even without the help of religion. Many people discover things in our world and religion is not one of the drawbacks and it is not religion's fault why there are some things that are undescribed in this world.
in your personal experience, far more people use the bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others that use it to help themselves be good to others
Thats just your personal experience. But in my personal experience, it just serves as guidelines for us catholics to be good to others. We are helping ourselves by doing these things.
that secular approach that your saying
Im not really interested in knowing that because i have my own opinions and beliefs in my life. Im happy with my bible
Science progresses even without the help of religion.
It would be more accurate to say that science progresses in spite of religion. On numerous occasions science has been retarded in the name of religion. For one example, consider Galileo.
Thats just your personal experience. But in my personal experience, it just serves as guidelines for us catholics to be good to others. We are helping ourselves by doing these things.
Honestly, I think the Bible and Catholicism is a good cover for personal prejudice disguised as righteousness and generosity. The Catholics I know who are decent people are good in spite of the Bible rather than because of it, as they have chosen not to use the literal interpretations of that text to discriminate against others. Moreover, you claim it helps you do good to others and in the same breath say that you are helping yourselves by doing these things... so where is the selfless good to others? The Bible is not necessary for being good to others, and in my opinion it too readily enables the prejudices and cruelty in people.
Im not really interested in knowing that because i have my own opinions and beliefs in my life. Im happy with my bible
You have rather missed my point, which was that there is nothing the Bible can give which cannot be gotten in a secular fashion without the harms of the Bible.
Honestly, I think the Bible and Catholicism is a good cover for personal prejudice disguised as righteousness and generosity.
.
And you are welcome to think that. . . . but I think you are disputing someone else.
.
However, since I'm here. I've come to believe that bitchy-ness and meanness often come disguised as nice boobs and a long pair of legs. Disguises are tricky in this world.
It would be more accurate to say that science progresses in spite of religion
You've said so in your past argument that religion holds back science. And now, you're saying that it progresses in spite of religion. How come? I've clearly stated to you that science progresses even without the help of religion, so why repeat it?
On numerous occasions science has been retarded in the name of religion. For one example, consider Galileo.
That was years before, when people dont understand what things really are. But now, even Catholics like me, learn from science, and we get knowledge. And we dont consider it as you've said.. Retarded.
Honestly, I think the Bible and Catholicism is a good cover for personal prejudice disguised as righteousness and generosity.
No it isnt a cover, we just find it as guidelines, wherein we should or shouldnt do these things. Doesnt mean that we have to follow it all the time.
The Catholics I know who are decent people are good in spite of the Bible rather than because of it, as they have chosen not to use the literal interpretations of that text to discriminate against others.
Yes, we're good in spite of the Bible, and we dont just use it as excuse to be decent. As ive said, its like our moral guidelines. And the reason why we do good is not just to fulfill the things written inside the Bible, but also comes from within us.
Moreover, you claim it helps you do good to others and in the same breath say that you are helping yourselves by doing these things... so where is the selfless good to others?
When we do good to others, it brings you self improvement, therefore, it also helps yourself. It doesnt mean that we do these because we just want to be rewarded of our efforts.
The Bible is not necessary for being good to others, and in my opinion it too readily enables the prejudices and cruelty in people.
Yeah, it's not necessary for you, but it is for us. It's part of our faith. If you dont want to believe our faith, then we wont force you. Thats simple. It doesnt enable.. Enabling means you are letting someone do cruelty to others. But then, in your terms, it's just a book. Nothing more nothing less.It's not a person, thats why it cant talk and enable things or people.
You have rather missed my point, which was that there is nothing the Bible can give which cannot be gotten in a secular fashion without the harms of the Bible.
Yeah, but as ive said. I dont know what those secular fashion are.. and Im not really interested in having to know it because I already have something to guide me. It doesnt harm. People just take things literally and people get things wrong in the Bible, thats why they end up killing or hurting others. As ive said the Bible is just a guideline. It's up to the person if he will harm them or not.
You've said so in your past argument that religion holds back science. And now, you're saying that it progresses in spite of religion. How come? I've clearly stated to you that science progresses even without the help of religion, so why repeat it?
It was not a repetition. There is a difference between saying that religion has not helped science and that religion has hindered science. You are saying that science has progressed without the help of religion, and I am saying that science would have progressed more rapidly without the interference of religion.
That was years before, when people dont understand what things really are. But now, even Catholics like me, learn from science, and we get knowledge. And we dont consider it as you've said.. Retarded.
Firstly, I was using the word "retarded" in its literal sense to imply of a process of being slowed down (rather than as "stupid" which seems to be your interpretation). More importantly, religion continues to fight science. For example, the insistence that evolution is wrong, that the earth is not millions of years old, or the objections against stem cell research. Moreover, regardless of the role of religion today my point still stands that it has had an overall negative effect throughout the history of religion and science.
No it isnt a cover, we just find it as guidelines, wherein we should or shouldnt do these things. Doesnt mean that we have to follow it all the time.
Precisely, it not only includes explicit statements of intolerance but is open to people reading in their prejudices and using the text as a justification.
Yes, we're good in spite of the Bible, and we dont just use it as excuse to be decent. As ive said, its like our moral guidelines. And the reason why we do good is not just to fulfill the things written inside the Bible, but also comes from within us.
If you are good in spite of the Bible and the good you are comes from within you then why do even need the Bible? If it is nothing more than guidelines you choose to follow or not to follow then you are just applying the morals you would follow anyways, but with a less critical eye.
When we do good to others, it brings you self improvement, therefore, it also helps yourself. It doesnt mean that we do these because we just want to be rewarded of our efforts.
Thanks for clarifying.
Yeah, it's not necessary for you, but it is for us. It's part of our faith. If you dont want to believe our faith, then we wont force you. Thats simple.
No, it point blank is not necessary. You say it is a part of your faith, and faith is not necessary for having the morals you hold; it is a matter of preference. Although I appreciate your not forcing me to believe your faith.
It doesnt enable.. Enabling means you are letting someone do cruelty to others. But then, in your terms, it's just a book. Nothing more nothing less.It's not a person, thats why it cant talk and enable things or people
Enable is defined as "a : to provide with the means or opportunity; b : to make possible, practical, or easy" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This does not require speech or (in)action, merely presence. The Bible does allow people to excuse away their prejudices, and it does make it easier to act cruelly towards others than if a person had to find an objective excuse for doing so (which I would argue you could not even find without the Bible or other holy scripture).
Yeah, but as ive said. I dont know what those secular fashion are.. and Im not really interested in having to know it because I already have something to guide me. It doesnt harm. People just take things literally and people get things wrong in the Bible, thats why they end up killing or hurting others. As ive said the Bible is just a guideline. It's up to the person if he will harm them or not.
Still missing the point. My argument is that the Bible (or holy scripture in general) is more likely to support prejudice and hatred than are secular approaches. Religion is more likely also to hold back social and scientific progress than is a secular approach. If the benefits of religion (i.e. a system of morality) can be gotten through a secular approach without the harms associated with religion then why should be prefer religion? That some people choose not to read hatred into the Bible is beside the point that the Bible makes hatred easier and forms a ready basis for prejudice.
Honestly, I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people.
Sure, you say that now. I find that Atheists (not saying that you are) tend to be more "creatorists" then Christians. Man didn't just spring from the ground. The Bible did not make man barbaric.
I am indeed an atheist. I do not believe in God but nor do I believe that such a simplistic answer as blaming the Bible can explain away our flaws. The Bible is nothing more than a tool, but one which I maintain is more highly predisposed to enable or bring out the vices in human nature than the virtues. I am of the opinion that while the abuse of the Bible and religion at large is not unique to the theist ideology, it is more prevalent and consistent throughout human history.
Yeah it is a tool, as ive said, its like a dictionary wherein we get the meanings of everything that we do in our daily life. Serves as general guidelines, and not the actual thing we do because we are people and we have our own minds, and we decide if we should do good or not.
brings out the vices in human nature than the virtues
Yes it does, like polytheism, drinking and being lazy. Are you being hurt by that truth? Guess it doesnt.
abuse of the bible and religion is not unique
Yeah. We got used to it. People abuse it and never really understand it because they take it so literally. Its also consistent. Im aware of that
In my personal experience, far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others than use it to help themselves be good to others.
.
Jace, let's narrow in on something you said here.
far more people use the Bible and religion to justify their prejudice and hatred towards others
.
I'll bold it twice, because it was well said. to justify
.
The Bible didn't create prejudice or hatred. A few years ago America and it's allies invaded Iraq in the name of Democracy. The Bible is old hat. To America, Democracy is beautiful, why not force it upon people?
.
There is technically nothing about Democracy that justifies the invasion of another county, but we made it fit.
.
The Inquisition was about politics and attempts to control spice trade, mass thinking, control education, control medicine, and suppress rebels.
.
The Crusades were about spice trade, specially about sugar. Sugar became the engine for slave trade, invasions, etc. Of course they needed the church to back them.
.
Conquests were about land, gold, and again, believe it or not. . . . . sugar. The word "Spice" gives it such a lovely spin, don't you think?
.
Religion and the Bible begged people to be nice to each other, love each other, to do unto others as they would have done unto them. Jesus tried to convince people that cruelty of the OT was done with. That people cling to that shit has NOTHING to do with their desire to be righteous.
.
When people quote the Bible to me, they don't give a shit about my soul. They just want a stick that they believe they can beat me with. The need to be right, powerful, justified, etc, is a human issue, not a Bible issue.
.
And you made the comment that I find it concerning that you need a book to tell you that you should be nice to other people. You seriously have too much faith in man. We are on the top of the food chain in a world used to be filled with monsters and deadly creatures. We are the meanest ass creatures in this quadrant of the galaxy.
.
There are a couple sweet hearts out there. . . and maybe you are one, but most of us have got the capacity of a cold blooded killer inside.
I agree, the Bible did not create prejudice and hatred. However, I think it is more inherently predisposed to support it than are other forms of thinking.
You observe that there is "technically nothing about Democracy that justifies the invasion of another country" however I would contend that in contrast there is plenty of material in the Bible which does justify violence and hatred. This of course does not contradict that Democracy can be abused as the Bible often is, however I think that the Bible leaves itself far more open to such abuse.
The Inquisition, Crusades, and Conquests were certainly motivated by politics and money yet I must wonder if they could have galvanized populations so successfully without the compelling arguments of hellfire and eternal salvation.
Religion and the Bible are replete with their own specific embraces of violence - shall we begin with God flooding the world and killing every living creature expect the few aboard a boat? How is that loving?
You seriously have too much faith in man. We are on the top of the food chain in a world used to be filled with monsters and deadly creatures. We are the meanest ass creatures in this quadrant of the galaxy.
Not at all. I absolutely recognize that human beings have an incredible potential for violence and ill-will towards others and make of myself no exception to that. I think, however, that it is pathetic that people must delude themselves with faith to functionally interact with others. If you need a book to tell you how to live with other people then you are too unoriginal and unimaginative to figure it the fuck out for yourself.
If you need a book to tell you how to live with other people then you are too unoriginal and unimaginative to figure it the fuck out for yourself.
You seriously lack proper respect for what you have and what has been done you. The language you enjoy, and concepts you use, and the social tools that you have were created by others. I'm pretty damn original when it comes to thinking, but I've had my dreams of actually having an original thought crushed. And not just gently crushed, but harshly. Like finding that some idea I came up with can be found in Chapter 17 of some String Theory text book. Or thinking I had some wise thought and somebody, "oh you have read the teaching of Confucius." I'm like "who?"
.
I love the symbol of the Rock Star, in fact, the Movie called "Rock Star" really set the image for me. Not everyone can be a Rock Star, and after watching the movie, I really sure that I wouldn't like to be. When you see some nerd in the basement of an old library, pouring over the books, gleaning lost ideas and information, I really don't want to be that guy either. I appreciate him and might even enjoy helping him, but sending my life that way . . . it's not for me.
.
I love unicorns and dragons and the crazy fuckers that keep that stuff alive, but many of them are Wiccan and party naked and what the hell if we have a little group sex in the moon light? Again, not for me. But I deeply, deeply, deeply, appreciate all of those guys. They all add some to life that I want, or maybe even need.
.
I grew up in Northern Arizona. Though out my teenage years, I would go hiking mountains or wandering the wilderness. Sometimes I would find a flower or tree growing out of solid rock. I would stare at it wonder and admiration. It had found a way to live that more or less defined the laws of gardening. Even though the tree might grow out horizontally it would quickly turn and seek the sun.
.
And to get to my point. Put yourself back 10,000 years and say that. I was looking at a population chart last night, (which scared the hell out me) and realized that living with other has really become almost natural to us. But it hasn't always been. And to many people, still isn't.
.
People who grow up in crowded places quickly learn the rules. Most crazy extremists are living in isolated areas. The laws of nature are kind of changing. People can learn morals without a book. But living without morals in a place with millions and millions of people, is likely to get you hurt.
You seriously lack proper respect for what you have and what has been done you. The language you enjoy, and concepts you use, and the social tools that you have were created by others.
Not at all; I absolutely respect and acknowledge that the thoughts I develop are influenced by the thoughts of others before me. However, there is a difference between being unique and being original. To me, what you are describing is uniqueness. What I meant by originality is that it is something you have developed and it has originated from within you (whether influenced by other forces or not) rather than simply being taken without analysis or self-development.
People who grow up in crowded places quickly learn the rules. Most crazy extremists are living in isolated areas.
I disagree. There are plenty of extremists and fundamentalists who live in very urban areas. I grew up across the street from a family of them. I live in a city filled with them. These are the people who burn other peoples holy books, who subject LGBTQ individuals to electroschock "treatment", and tell other people they are going to hell. These people are not outliers in my experience, but all too prevalent and pervasive across demographics and geographies.
The laws of nature are kind of changing. People can learn morals without a book. But living without morals in a place with millions and millions of people, is likely to get you hurt.
Precisely, people can learn morals without a book. I think doing that also requires more work on the individual and keeps a person more open to questioning and developing throughout their life. I think that what you say about living without morals, however, is quite true. I doubt very much that this a modern, urban phenomenon however.
I dont think it works well as historical reference because too much of it is inaccurate but it does show how people used to think in times gone by. Basically I think the Bible is a good Philosophical and Spiritual tool not something to be taken at face value but a kind of guide book for the soul it might help guide people in their life but creates as many questions as it answers.
See, I agree with this too. It has myths, legends, and such. It's shows what we used to think, and in some case, how we tried to lie or cover shit up. I love it for the reasons alone.
It is good for giving some general guides lines to living a good life, altough there are parts of the bible that are not as appliable as they once were due to changes in soceity. I think alot of people can benefit from some of the parables in the bible as a teaching tool for certain moral ideals or as inspiration to their own writing. Robert Frost used the book of job as his inspiration for the "masque of reason".
As for historical study, the bible is useful as a reference, but it is not a perfect one since there has been mutiable translations. Still it is useful to get an idea of what the average person's life included.
I strongly believe that the Bible can be trusted in all 4 of the categories you mention. First of all there is not any other book in the entire earth that is as unique as the Bible. For it was composed by 40 diffrent authors by a span of about 1500 years. So the question is, can it be trusted? Well if you look at the Bible's overall message, you will see that it teaches good moral value and wisdom. From the psalms of David, to the proverbs and songs of Solomon, to the parables of Jesus, and the teachings of Paul. There is so much wisdom and knowledge you can convey from it. It is the central theme of which most modern western society is founded upon. For me thats what matters. There are some historical things that might be debatable here in there. But its central message is not debatable. Its a guide to live a life full of hapiness, joy, love, peace and find comfort when you need it.
How unique a document is has nothing to do with how trustworthy it is.
You seem to admit that the historical credibility of the Bible is up for debate, so I'll leave that alone.
But its central message is not debatable. Its a guide to live a life full of hapiness, joy, love, peace and find comfort when you need it.
If you read the Bible one way, you have a guide to living a happy life; if you read it another way, you have a charter for barbarism. I'm my experience it makes a great deal more difference who is reading scripture, not what they're reading. I'd wager that you take verses like "love your neighbor" to heart, but you ignore and gloss over verses like "if children curse they should be stoned to death."
So clearly the Bible isn't your moral guide; you are. You are the best means you have to living a happy, joyful, loving, peaceful, and comfortable life, not the Bible. If the Bible was the best moral guide and you followed it to the letter you would very quickly find yourself in a state or federal penitentiary. Without you to filter the nuggets of wisdom from the barbaric muck and shit that permeates the Bible the book is almost worthless.
Yep. The central message of the bible IS very debatable. The central message I get from it, is God is vengeful and not only likes to kill mass quantities of people (flood/sodom and gommora/curses on egypt... hell the entire old testament), but is planning on doing it again (revelations).
An apocalypse... ? fuck that shit. I'm fighting back. build more nukes, there's a sociopath running around loose in heaven!
I did too. I was like, "Go Adam, you rebellious Son of a Bitch. I even enlisted in Satan army. And then I realized it was all a joke. there are no bad guys, just a loving parents.
.
And I realize that "higher beings" means being smarter and kinder. And then I realized that God is the Awesome Sum Bitch that ever was.
.
But it starts with a healthy "fuck you." When you can say that and really mean, you have sort of graduated from the animal in you and taken on a sense of independence that was the mission all along.
I think I'd choose this side because for me, it weighs the trustworthy than the untrustworthy.
As a historical reference, well, that is really one drawback of the Bible. Some of the events were not really accurate when you look at the history of the world. Also, other events in history were done of after the Bible was written.
As a spiritual reference, I think it helps Catholics like me in viewing my values in life. It also gives me sayings and learn from them. Like the 8 beatitudes, which gives me hope whenever I am down.
As an influence on mankind, I think the Bible also helps me in doing the things that I have to do. Like being nice to people even if they are not nice to you.
As a current and future asset, why not? If it helps people to be good to others then I think it could also be helpful.
Well it says man was made from dirt; women made from a rib bone, that children should be stoned to death if they were to speak swear words at their parents, women should be kept silent and cover their heads, etc.
Btw Untrustworthy, no space, and "As an influence on mankind" no "a".
Man does come from dirt. Maybe something crawled out of the ocean a while back, but man is "dust to dust and ashes to ashes." It's called the "Circle of Life."
Women where made from a rib bone? Dude, we all come from a ribbed boner. Children should be stoned to death for swearing at parents. In it's time, it wasn't considered that bad. Greeks left the "less then perfect children to die." I'm not for it now, but sometimes I consider it.
Women should keep silent and cover their heads. . . . god, them were the days. These "empowered chicks" are great and all, but at the end of long day, having some empowered chick bitching about the trash or dishes. . . . . I'm just saying.
Btw Untrustworthy, no space, and "As an influence on mankind" no "a".
When a person points out your inadequacies is only exposes their own.
I know I have issues, you pointing them out. . . . . . only makes you seem like you are trying to yourself look smarter. But at this point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm not seeing.
Man does come from dirt. That... is not how biology works. "Dust to dust" is a nice turn of phrase but it makes no scientific sense.
Women where made from a rib bone? I can tell you like to play with words to avoid addressing actual valid arguments. Stoning children to death for swearing at parents... that has little to do with the child and much more to do with the parent. And talk about egregiously disproportionate punishment.
God, them were the days. Maybe you deserve to be bitched at if you cannot do something so simple as trash and dishes.
When a person points out your inadequacies is only exposes their own. Alternatively, it just means that you are inadequate and the other person superior... I'm just saying, dude.
Alternatively, it just means that you are inadequate and the other person superior... I'm just saying, dude.
Haha, you walked right into that one. Now you are inadequate and I am superior. Wait. . . . ah, damn. Where does that leave us now?
I can tell you like to play with words to avoid addressing actual valid arguments.
Words are my toys and I do love to play. I love kids. I get a little tense sometimes, but I would die for my kid and I would probably die without her. And without a doubt. . . . . I deserve to bitched at. God, could you imagine living me? Shutter the thought.
That... is not how biology works.
More or less, it is. Life, (we think) started in the sea.
But when man appeared on land, at some time, he ate the food of the land. And while, man is made largely of water, he is also make of the dirt. I don't think it's a stretch to say that man made of the dirt.
Haha, you walked right into that one. Now you are inadequate and I am superior. Wait. . . . ah, damn. Where does that leave us now?
Where indeed?
Words are my toys and I do love to play. I love kids. I get a little tense sometimes, but I would die for my kid and I would probably die without her. And without a doubt. . . . . I deserve to bitched at. God, could you imagine living me? Shutter the thought.
A redemptive response, I suppose.
More or less, it is. Life, (we think) started in the sea. But when man appeared on land, at some time, he ate the food of the land. And while, man is made largely of water, he is also make of the dirt. I don't think it's a stretch to say that man made of the dirt.
Just because human beings came from a primordial ooze / sea does not mean that we are made of the same. Further, just because we ate and still eat food that comes from the earth that does not mean that we are made of dirt. In my opinion, it is rather a stretch to say we are what our food gained nourishment from...
Maybe something crawled out of the ocean a while back, but man is "dust to dust and ashes to ashes." It's called the "Circle of Life."
Nope. Life originated from the ocean with basic cellular lifeforms, not the dirt. And "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is a completely irrelevant quote concerning death.
Dude, we all come from a ribbed boner. Children should be stoned to death for swearing at parents. In it's time, it wasn't considered that bad. Greeks left the "less then perfect children to die." I'm not for it now, but sometimes I consider it.
The Greeks believed in an alternate Polytheistic religion, and left physically deficient children to die to make their armies and people more efficient, but they didn't care, it's not like their barbaric actions came straight from the word of God. Stoning a child to death for 'verbal harassment' is just a shitty act, and you should be shameful for being associated with justifying its placement in the bible.
It is definitely an immoral act, and a set back for the development and growth of the human race.
You should also realize that it was in the damn bible, the word of God.
As you can see, this isn't the word of God since it is dreadfully immoral.
. . . . god, them were the days. These "empowered chicks" are great and all, but at the end of long day, having some empowered chick bitching about the trash or dishes. . . . . I'm just saying.
Your arguments are depressing.
So you want us to be exactly like those Arabic countries where women have to turn into dementors by covering their faces.
I will not settle for a "just saying."
When a person points out your inadequacies is only exposes their own.
I know I have issues, you pointing them out. . . . . . only makes you seem like you are trying to yourself look smarter. But at this point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I'm not seeing.
I am completely aware of that. I was greatly expecting you to comment on this as well. And you did. Well done.
But you are not making your case in 'smarts' with this half-assed argument.
Or maybe it isn't a half-assed argument- much more of an intentional choice of wording due to your zero fucks given on the subject. I think.
mom said to me guess who's doing the dishes tonight? I hit that Soulja Boy and said YOOOUUUUUU!
Nope. Life originated from the ocean with basic cellular lifeforms, not the dirt. And "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" is a completely irrelevant quote concerning death.
I just said that life come out of the sea. The idea of man being made of clay is that we "are what we eat" which is basically things from the land, whether planet or animals. Even though I believe in the Aquatic Ape theory, were a current "land lubbers."
.
Bad argument is bad.
Fine! I am properly rebuked. I was trying to be funny.
.
I look at life from this perspective: "It's here! How did it get here?" I don't always know. But I'm here, so how I can I complain?
.
Everyone is bragging up science. . . . but I was looking a world population chart last night. We might be on the verge of something truly hideous here. We are pushing 8 billion people. If there was a major hiccup in the system, there would be some serious misery. Where is the morality is that? Morality is a relative thing. If a billion people die of starvation because some part of the system broke down or became over loaded. . . is the moral.
.
Some people are saying that WHO is already trying to forcibly control world population. Is an occasional war bad or wiping out a Continent with disease? We can stop AIDS, we just choose not to.
I just said that life come out of the sea. The idea of man being made of clay is that we "are what we eat" which is basically things from the land, whether planet or animals. Even though I believe in the Aquatic Ape theory, were a current "land lubbers."
.
"We are what we eat" is an irrelevant phrase, concerning diets. And we are omnivores, eating both plants and animals; some choosing not to eat animals at all.
"It's here! How did it get here?" I don't always know. But I'm here, so how I can I complain?
Don't we all.
Everyone is bragging up science. . . . but I was looking a world population chart last night. We might be on the verge of something truly hideous here. We are pushing 8 billion people. If there was a major hiccup in the system, there would be some serious misery. Where is the morality is that? Morality is a relative thing. If a billion people die of starvation because some part of the system broke down or became over loaded. . . is the moral.
What is the system?
Some people are saying that WHO is already trying to forcibly control world population. Is an occasional war bad or wiping out a Continent with disease? We can stop AIDS, we just choose not to.
It's a fictional book designed to brainwash people into following and giving money to a certain organization. The Bible has limited truth, if that, and shouldn't even exist. The fact that it still exists in modern society is just a sign of how idiotic people can be.
Too right. L. Ron Hubbard is the closest thing the modern world has to Jesus: skeezy, probably un-bathing, secretly greedy but always with a generous front. Well, I guess Mother Theresa would be a close second to L.Ron H. Xenu.
Wow, that is rough. Shouldn't even exist? Moses, very possibility an rebel Egyptian prince took his "workers" and skipped out on Ramses II, was probably one of the greatest influences in the world. I really don't feel like an idiotic pondering his intent.
There was a global flood. Ice Age causes them all of the time. Time refers obviously have issues. But as a Mystic, Moses might have tried to document things hard to understand. And get over the seven day thing. Rome wasn't built in a day either.
The ice ages caused Global floods? The entire surface of the earth was covered by water? And this happened all the time? Please, educate me on this. Where can I learn more?
I'm over the seven day thing. I'm quite sure it's untrue and that's one of the reasons I do not trust the bible.
I am flattered that you want to learn more from me. . . actually I'm not.
.
The Bible was says that water covered the face of the whole earth, (if I remember right.)
.
How would someone in a boat know that? There are several different accounts a great floods, from different cultures.
.
Some scientists have recently begun taking serious interests in our atmosphere. With all of the volcanic action in the last few years, smoke and dust have gotten higher up and every recorded. It surprised folks to see ice crystals form very high up. There is an ancient legend that the earth used to be shielded by a great sheet of ice. Of course, this has long since dismissed. But suddenly scientists are acknowledging a layer of ice could form over the earth. Not as a solid sheet like you would find on lake, but as crystallized water vapor. The amount of water an event like this could hold would incredible.
.
And the melting event would happen quickly, the ice particles are tiny. For example: An development of ice followed by a massive solar storm could cause the earth to flood.
.
I personally have not done the research for the flood, but I have seen some of it. Floods are relative, though. I don't need to accept that a flood covered the whole earth. What I do accept is that "PEOPLE THOUGHT" that it did. I trust that.
.
In the story of the Walls of Jericho, Joshua commanded the Sun to stop so they fight their enemies. And at last, they blew their horns and stooped their feet and walls of the city can down. And so the story goes.
.
Archaeological finds confirm that there was major earthquake in the area about that time, maybe something on the scale of 9. And the craziest part is that in China there is a recorded event where the Sun didn't come up one day about the same time. Now, I don't think that Joshua actually stopped the sun. But there might be an event where the Earth's Crust slipped. Scientists have been suggesting that something like that is possible, and have probably happened in the recent past. And scientists are looking at the Jericho event as a possible time it happened.
.
How things happened and why things happened, may never be understood. But that "something did happen" is a very handy reference tool.
.
My suggestion is. Don't ask "if the flood happened" ask "why did they put it in the book?" These people are your ancestors. They are your mommies and daddies. Why did they see the world the way they did? They were there. They weren't stupid. While they might understand the mechanics the way we do, they still saw what they saw.
"I personally have not done the research for the flood, but I have seen some of it. Floods are relative, though. I don't need to accept that a flood covered the whole earth. What I do accept is that "PEOPLE THOUGHT" that it did. I trust that."
--Ok, just to help you out here. There is no direct geological evidence (as performed by geologists outside the CHristian psuedo-science institute) for a GLOBAL flood. If you want to make claims otherwise, back it up.
--I agree that there was probably a local great flood in asia minor at a time in the relatively recent past, hence the story of noah and of gilgamesh.
However, the bible tells us, the flood was global. that one man and his family survived to repopulate the earth. and that they saved all the animals of the world on their boat. This is just false on its face. A book that tells such ridiculous stories is clearly untrustworthy. And if you believe it actually happened this way. You sir, are retarded.
However, the bible tells us, the flood was global. that one man and his family survived to repopulate the earth.
Ok. So because the Bible says the "whole earth" and even though you admit that there could have been a flood in Asia Minor, the Bible is not be trusted? I am going to claim otherwise. You prove me wrong? The lack of evidence does prove it didn't happen. As I said, SEVERAL cultures have documented the great flood.
.
I survived an Apocalypse with my family, and someone else did too, somewhere in China, how I am supposed to know? You guys are so quick to point out there is no magic, yet you expect the people of the bible to have magic to prove their stories. Perspective, my good man. Perspective.
I don't think it's trustworthy. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in some sort of higher power. But The Bible just doesn't make sense most of the time. I like some of the values it teaches, but the stories through which those values are taught, I don't believe in. Plus, it contradicts itself some. It says that God is all loving and accepts everyone. It also says that God hates gays and they are banished to hell. So, which is true?
The whole God hating Gays thing comes from the Old Testament which was the bit for Jews, Jesus never actually said anything about Gays the part in the New Testament some Christians use to justify their Homophobia comes from a mistranslation in the book of Paul although they wont listen to you
It also says that God hates gays and they are banished to hell.
It really doesn't say that except for one fleeting phrase, which basically says eating pork and not covering your poop are also reasons to die.
One thing I think people don't consider is evolution. The Ten Commandments were cutting edge law at the time. The eye for an eye thing was actually very merciful. It was a day when hurting someone meant you were killed without a trial. Many of the laws required that you at least be given a chance. In other words, it was unlawful to kill someone who might have poked your out. That was big stuff at the time.
People really take the Bible out of context. It was sort of a history and law book of people thousands of years ago. We might have misunderstood history, but at least people had a perspective on it.
It was sort of a history and law book of people thousands of years ago.
In other words, it is an outdated book written by people who lived in societies quite different from ours and who embraced ideas which we find now to be obsolete. As a consequence, "believers" pick and choose what to believe in and construe the Bible to fit with their beliefs. What, exactly, makes a text like that trustworthy?
In other words, it is an outdated book written by people who lived in societies quite different from ours and who embraced ideas which we find now to be obsolete.
I suppose, if you want to look at it that way. I find democracy to be obsolete, but some people cling to it.
The Bible, is perhaps the single most influential (second only to IKEA catalog) in the world. I would think, perhaps, if one wanted a reference for the nature of mankind, whether true or not, the Bible would be a pretty place to start. I love ancient cultures. . . . but I'm weird.
The Bible, is perhaps the single most influential (second only to IKEA catalog) in the world. I would think, perhaps, if one wanted a reference for the nature of mankind, whether true or not, the Bible would be a pretty place to start.
Sure, the Bible has some value in that light but I do not think that makes it trustworthy by any means.
I love ancient cultures. . . . but I'm weird.
That makes two of us. Interesting conclusion we seem to have reached here: we are both simultaneously inadequate and superior as well as weird to boot. ;)
The Ten Commandments were cutting edge law at the time.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that these laws that we theoretically got handed to us straight from god we're only a slight bit more advanced (in some areas) than the general morality of the culture and time period? I mean, this is god we're talking about here. We shouldn't be able to look at his carved in stone moral commandments and say "well they we're pretty good for 2000 years ago." No! I would expect a moral code that would baffle us even today. A moral code that is timeless and universally applicable. I wouldn't expect a law handed down from god to expire and go out of date in a few centuries. Or we should be getting regular updates to the commandments as time goes on, but for whatever reason god only ever decided to blatantly intervene in human affairs for a short period of time a couple thousand years ago in the illiterate, barbaric Middle East, so that's obviously not happening.
If out of nowhere a prophet 2000 years ago produced a tablet that said stuff like "Don't keep slaves; all men and women are equal; homosexuals are people too; etc," then I would be impressed, and then I would think perhaps some divine intervention was needed to produce such a document.
A seriously larger percentage of the bible is false. Historically, physically, or scientifically. Nearly every part if the bible violates one or more if these in some way. These would be examples if the bible just being wrong which makes it untrustworthy.
The bible is ever changing. The bible has been changed hundreds of times by the hundreds of authors and scribes who read and copied or translated it to say what they wanted it to. What we have now is not even CLOSE to what the original said. Thinking that is like being the idiot at the end of a game of telephone believing what he heard was the original phrase. An example of this is when King James changed "thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" to "thou shalt not let a WITCH to live". That is not a misstranslation. It is a personal adgenda that the king used the bible for. Thats all it's ever been a tool for. These things make the information untrustworthy.
There are tons of contradictions in the bible. Whether its small things like dates or big things like events that did or didn't happen, many contradictions exist between books or even verses. This makes the information untrustworthy.
Nobody knows who wrote it. It was not a historian. Historians did live at the supposed time of Christ yet not a one who's works we read today who lived in that area and time wrote anything about Jesus. It was these peoples JOBS to write the events down around them exactly for future peoples. Were supposed to believe these people didn't write this astounding information down but some average Joe did? And someone from a time where most were illiterate? Ok. This makes it untrustworthy.
It is 2000+ years old. It should not be taken as truth. We dont still accept 2000 year old science concepts like flat earth or 2000 year old medical practices. Why should this be any different?
It is a silly fairytale book with ZERO evidence for the bulk of it. Many Christians will way "oh well they found out that this city existed" or "this battle really happened". Ok yeah that's great but just because A existed doesnt mean G, H, and Z are true too. For example, they say Jerusalem exists (obviously). But that doesnt mean Jesus turned water into wine. You need evidence to back up every single claim. I use the Harry potter analogy. Just because London exists doesnt mean Harry potter does.
The bible has been changed hundreds of times by the hundreds of authors and scribes who read and copied or translated it to say what they wanted it to.
Sounds like the Internet. I take everything I read with a grain of salt.
And if you don't mind. I've read the Bible, some parts more then once, but I don't remember the Bible ever making a stand on the shape of the Earth. If you don't mind. . . . . .
Precisely. You can't believe everything you read. That's just common knowledge.
The bible makes quite a few references to the earth having corners and ends. I have a link if you want. It's can be pretty much infered because the bible came well before the discovery of the round earth. In fact, the guy who figured it out was ridiculed by the church and probably threatened. So if it was in the bible that it was round, that wouldnt make sense. Or the church just didn't get the memo.
That wasn't his claim. The Bible never directly said the Earth is flat; it just makes numerous references to it having edges, corners, pillars, ends, and being circular (not spherical, circular).
We're talking dozens of verses that imply this: Isaiah 11, Job 38, Matthew 4, Revelations 7, etc. And when it comes to the church establishing an entire religious doctrine on something, they don't need that many verses. Look at the modern church and it's whole pro-family, anti-gay, withholding marriage thing; that's all based off of one little verse that doesn't mention anything about homosexuals other than god doesn't like them.
But why is this surprising? The Bible was written before humanity knew the Earth is round; you can't expect the illiterate savages who wrote the book to have any kind of special, scientific knowledge in this regard.
There also texts that one cannot understand fully. You can`t understand everything you read. By saying that the earth having corners means that the act said escalates thoroughly in all regions of the Earth.
The priests were the ones who abuse their power not God. As a Christian I my self am annoyed by how corrupt the Catholic church is.
Precisely. You can't believe everything you read. That's just common knowledge.
The bible makes quite a few references to the earth having corners and ends. I have a link if you want. It's can be pretty much infered because the bible came well before the discovery of the round earth. In fact, the guy who figured it out was ridiculed by the church and probably threatened. So if it was in the bible that it was round, that wouldnt make sense. Or the church just didn't get the memo.
The bible makes quite a few references to the earth having corners and ends
I never really took that to mean that world was flat. We still use the quadrant system which implies "corners." Ends of the earth is also sort of "I'll hunt your ass to the ends of the earth."
.
The more I debate this, the more . . . . umm, what's the word. . ? . . . .Hypocritical people. Not you per-say. But science is constantly be updated. It's sort of like, in 1930 they discovered the ninth planet. To bad they didn't get the memo that Pluto wasn't a Planet.
.
When the first books of the Bible were written they were using a Lunar calendar. Sure it's possible that Adam was 930 years old, if your year was a lunar cycle. That would put Adam at about 77 yrs old. But stupid ass God must not have gotten the memo that future generations would use a solar calendar. He could cleared a lot of confusion right there.
.
Anyway, my sarcasm doesn't come over very well. I am beginning to think that Atheists are more like Satanists. They don't give a shit one way or the other about God or the Devil, they just can't stand the people that do.
Hypocritical people. Not you per-say. But science is constantly be updated. It's sort of like, in 1930 they discovered the ninth planet. To bad they didn't get the memo that Pluto wasn't a Planet.
That's one of the things that makes science superior to religion. You can update and revise science. It changes all the time as we learn more about the universe. Not only that, but if you're a scientist you've also got a bunch of smart people trying their damnedest to prove you wrong on every issue; you don't see that amongst, say, Christian pastors. And hell, you even succeed if you prove yourself wrong! But this is not what religions are doing. Most religions, particularly the antiquated monotheistic ones, are collections of ideas that stopped growing 1500-2500 years ago, and don't welcome challenging revision the way science does.
The principles of science are awesome. I have applied them in my effort to find God and had delightful success. One of the problems with religion is that God claims to the "unchanging." Pastors and religious have a hard time accepting that what they believed before wasn't truth, because they "claimed" that it was.
.
Science isn't so rigid. I will admit, good scientists are more humble and whiling to be wrong. Or simply have not choice.
.
However, science isn't about truth. Science is about facts and labels. However, just because we labels something so, doesn't make it actually truth. However, the same apply to religion.
.
But Atheists are quick to jump on the "unchanging" thing. I know the world is round, in the same sense that everyone else does. I have suspicions that it is not, but I don't know how to prove it.
.
So religious folks can change. But we don't change the scriptures, because that is what they say.
.
I am constantly reading things in science that I have to wonder, "is this the latest theory?" In religion, I know everything I read is merely a perspective and someone's idea.
So religious folks can change. But we don't change the scriptures, because that is what they say.
That's like saying scientists can change, but they don't change their theories once they are made up. Do you see how useless science would be if scientists behaved like that? Perhaps we can infer religion is useless because it does behave like that?
That's like saying scientists can change, but they don't change their theories once they are made up. Do you see how useless science would be if scientists behaved like that? Perhaps we can infer religion is useless because it does behave like that?
.
But Science isn't based on faith, not are the benefits are not based on upon the placebo effect. The Placebo effect is more powerful then any drug, over all. But in order for the placebo effect to work, you have to believe. And what if humans have the ability to develop and grow the placebo effect? What if more "believing" could increase the power of the placebo effect? There are documented events people have been healed by faith, of things that science couldn't.
.
Faith, if given a chance would be more powerful then science.
.
However, there is an issue with Religion in the world and that is that isn't very progressive. There is some evidence that perhaps there was faith in the ancient times that was much more powerful. For example: there are building in South American that science cannot explain but. . . . perhaps faith can.
There are documented events people have been healed by faith, of things that science couldn't.
And there are also a lot of documented cases of people sitting around praying to god instead of getting their loved ones professional medical help and their friends die as a result. I have a friend who can hardly use his arm because he cut it on a rusty nail when he was young and the resulting infection impaired his bodily functions. This wouldn't have been an issue if his batshit crazy mother hadn't insisted on praying for him instead of taking him to a doctor.
Faith, if given a chance would be more powerful then science.
Religious faith was actually given several thousand years of chances to show it could run the world, and it failed miserably. Perhaps it's time to let science take over?
Reality is a perspective. If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source. When I turn on a mercury vapor light, where exactly is the light coming from? The electricity excites the mercury particles causing them vibrate faster and faster, eventually giving off a strong glow. The Mercury isn't the light source, it's just a tuned oscillator excited to intense levels. The moon is basically the same. As a matter of perspective. . . . it's a light source, if not quite the light generator.
"As a matter of perspective" is NOT trustworthy evidence; it's specifically UN-trustworthy. Anecdotal or unfalsifiable evidence is worthless. Just because something APPEARS one way does not mean that it is so.
Everything you think and believe is a matter of perspective. There is nothing you can prove in this universe. It's all in your head, my good man. All of it.
There is nothing you will accept in this universe. Perspective and subjectivity are inherent to some degree in humanity, but to say that that nullifies any information we find is ridiculous for this reason: EVEN if all of our data is skewed by "perspective," that data will consistently yield predictable results, thereby PROVING (generic thing here).
Your head is inside of it, you arrogant, solipsistic, neighsayer.
Your head is inside of it, you arrogant, solipsistic, neighsayer.
.
This is just in your head too.
It doesn't matter that you "found a truth." Your perspective of it is yours.
.
Example: -You and a Ninja are looking at the same knife.
--You are thinking, "hey, I can butter my toast."
--Ninja is thinking, "hey, I can kill this dude."
.
All things are relative. You are unique. Your relationship with everything in the universe is different then mine. (My relationships are better, but still.) How you perceive what is true will never be exactly like someone else.
.
Take the Ninja out of the equation and put your partner in his/her place, (if you have one.) Even though you might have very similar views and common background, how your perceive the knife will be different. Sure, it is shiny, sharp, hard, (and no, I'm talking about that "thing you play with.") One of you might see it as more threatening, dangerous, something the kids can hurt themselves on, etc.
.
If we put perspective on a scale, of say, 0-100%. Even if it seems like you have exactly the same perspective, somewhere in there, it's still going to be like 10% off. Genetics, past experiences, gender, lighting, noises, smells, etc, all affect the way we perceive things. And there is no way that two people can have such close characteristics that if the same event was experienced by both, could have the same perception.
"If we put perspective on a scale, of say, 0-100%. Even if it seems like you have exactly the same perspective, somewhere in there, it's still going to be like 10% off."
How very perceptive of you; people see things slightly differently. You know what else" Dogs perceive things VERY differently for humans, yet we occupy the same reality! You speak of perception as a concrete thing, and you twist and turn until anything could be everything or nothing at once. Perception operates as an average; within a margin of error. This reality is a collective of all perception and each individual consciousness can be viewed as a singularity; hyper-condensed cognition.
Therefore, we can all agree on what a knife is; what red is; how long gestation takes in various animals; sentence structures; languages; you get the idea. Perception can be separated into five basic levels:total-collective, partial-collective, communal, interpersonal, and individual. Throughout each of these levels, there are points of commonality that permeate higher and higher until they become standard and eventually they become all-encompassing. For instance, no matter how you "perceive" biochemistry, you'll still die in a vacuum.
We're not changing the knife by calling it something else. Communicating and describing, recording and replicating results all lead us to one conclusion: we all experience and perceive things within a fairly narrow range of perception.
I will agree that unanimous agreement doesn't change reality. If that were true, god would exist.
"We" can perceive things with a narrow range, but that still don't mean that we see it what it is. Just because we agree, doesn't mean that we get to "define" reality. We can define OUR reality, but the doesn't define what something "actually is."
.
One of my favorite examples of this was movie called "The God's must be Crazy." Some dude drops a Coke bottle out of his airplane while flying over the "Bush" in Africa. A Bushman finds it and believes it to be a gift from the Gods. I can carry water, make music, make art, smash gourds, chose people at random when it spins, etc.
.
Of course, to us, it was a Coke bottle. To them, it because the most dangerous then the Gods had every given them and had to be destroyed. But they couldn't do it, it was harder then anything they had ever seen.
.
God exists no matter what we think. Things exist. They followed a path to be what they are. That path is based on Truth. That truth is God.
God exists no matter what we think. Prove it. Don't point to the effects of god and claim victory, I won't buy it. Don't tell me he's self evident; he isn't.
I've seen the god's must be crazy; good movie. However, it does more to disprove the existence of god than anything. The ultimate tool was only a coke bottle; not even close to divine.
"If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?
This is a perfect example of absolutism as absurdity. One of the few things we know is that most things don't have to be precise; even if it's minuscule, there will most likely be a margin of error. Record keeping, replication, and a sort of scientific ratification are required for anything to be accepted as fact. The entire tenet of faith is that you accept things without proof; that is why I wonder why theists bother arguing at all.
The Bible is bullshit, the Koran is a lie. The Bhagavad Gita did not fall from the sky.- Corporate Avenger
"If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?
.
Sir TheBogle88,
.
I am not comfortable logic like that. I question everything, the Science Channel says to do so. What I am trying to say, if I wrote a love letter about the beauty of the sunset and how it reminded me of your eyes and other crap. . . . it's a perspective. Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. The idea of fact is not actual truth, but rather agreed upon reality.
.
I felt a little bit like you do when I was young. I thought the Bible was a horrible story. But I found my self looking for "perspective" and the Bible offered me some of that. I don't look for people to give me truth though. Only I can decide what is truth, but I sometime do that by listening to others. . . . . not often, but some times.
I thought the Bible was a horrible story. I've always found it to be a fantastic story; but, a story nonetheless. Only I can decide what is truth Arrogant, much?
That's open to discussion. Arrogance and ignorance often go hand in hand; I do not think you to be woefully ignorant, but far too optimistic in your hopes for god.
However, I am closer to truth in my admission of ignorance then any of you will ever be in your claim to know.
A-ha! Now we see your fatal flaw; you falsely accuse me of knowledge where I have claimed ignorance. I have only asserted that you have no proof for the existence of god or the trust-worthiness of the bible.
Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. False: When enough independent tests confirm something to be a certain way a certain percentage of the time, it can then be considered true. What you want is 100%; an impossibility. Since you can't have it, you declare everything to be invalid and truth to be an impossibility, despite countless mathematical, historical, scientific, and anatomical examples that discount that.
You assume creation, either by deity or mentality; what evidence do you provide? Why do you assume such? Do you interpret current evidence as supporting a deistic reality?
If it isn't 100 percent accurate, how can it be truth? I can say, that the Sun is hot, and be 98 percent accurate. But what if, I was standing on Jupiter, the sun will not be so hot.
Tests still only document from a from a particular question or a perspective.
Do you currently inhabit a reality in which you can experience anything from other than a human perspective? You do not, regardless of what you think.
I'm really confused by this one, Sir TheBogle88. This what I have been saying. Everything is perspective, because everything is relative. The Sun hot, because I am colder. A mouse is small, because I am bigger.
.
We can share realities, where things are pretty common, but even so, everyone will always see it a little bit different. I'm here to make sure of that.
We can share realities, where things are pretty common, but even so, everyone will always see it a little bit different
A little bit different doesn't change fundamental properties of the universe. We may perceive things slightly differently, but we still inhabit the same reality. Perception doesn't change actuality (at least, not above a sub-atomic level).
The temperature of the sun is unaffected by your existence; arrogance at its pinnacle
This is true, but you make the incorrect assumption that hot is a temperature. Hot is a word used to describe how things feel. If your body temperature was 5000 degrees higher than that of the sun, you would not consider it to be hot.
That's correct; a word used to describe how things feel in relation to the average state around us. Our bodies aren't 5000 hotter than the sun, therefore your point is moot.
Hot is a word used, in this case, to describe high temperatures. Seeing as the sun has a very high temperature, we can be sure that it is hot.
Hot is used to describe things that are higher temperature than the object it is compared to. Hot and cold are relative and subjective. Yes, from the perspective of humans the Sun is hot. If you were to spend any amount of time outside at -30 degrees Celsius, you would feel cold, since that temperature is lower than your usual body temperature. If you were to then go inside a room that was +5 degrees Celsius, you would undoubtedly feel hot in comparison. This does not mean that +5 degrees is a high temperature, only that it is high compared to your body temperature at the time. So again, yes, the Sun is hot from our perspective, but that is only because we are not as hot, if we were than we would not consider the Sun to be hot. The sun is hot, because we are colder remains a true statement.
Hot is used to describe things that are higher temperature than the object it is compared to.
And, in this instance, we're comparing the temperature of the sun to humans. These hypothetical situations aren't relevant in anyway to reality; we're always going to perceive the sun as hot. LordChallen wishes to think that the moon being made of green cheese is valid, as long as one perceives it that way. Obviously, this is incorrect.
The sun is hot, because we are colder remains a true statement is not a true statement as it implies the suns temperature is intrinsically tied to our own temperature. A more correct statement would be We perceive the sun as hot, because we are much colder than the sun.
The sun isn't hot or cold because of our body temperature.
If we were able to perceive things in a totally non-human way, LordChalleon may have a point. However, at this point in history, we're a limited to merely human perception. Attempting to use our current knowledge of the universe to explain things that are, hypothetically, outside of the range of human perception is useless and would likely yield worthless results.
If we cannot perceive them, we have no evidence for their existence or non-existence; therefore we can make exactly zero conclusions about that which we cannot perceive.
If LordChalleon is saying the Sun is a high temperature because we are a lower temperature, then he is wrong entirely. If he uses the word hot, to mean what it does actually mean, then it only refers to our perception. You cannot simply assert that we are unable to think of things from other perspectives in a useful kind of a way. That is simply a very close-minded way to think.
Being able to perceive it, and thinking about what it would be like if you could are not the same, and don't have to be the same. It is just putting our understanding of what it feels like to be hotter than something else into thought. Could you not imagine what it would be like if you were to live at the same time as dinosaurs? That is something that no human has or will ever perceive but you could still think about it.
Could you not imagine what it would be like if you were to live at the same time as dinosaurs? That is something that no human has or will ever perceive but you could still think about it.
That's correct; however, humanity is relativity uniform in our range of perception. This allows for us to classify things withing certain temperature ranges as "hot" or "cold." I understand that they describe how we perceive the temperature, but since we cannot perceive that temperature any other way, we can safely describe the sun as hot.
I can imagine myself as a star-dwelling being; comfortable in the sun. That does not affect reality in anyway, though.
I'll leave this final paragraph for consideration, as you ignore large parts of my argument, I feel I am wasting my energy. The word hot does not describe facts about anything, only subjective feeling. Regardless if that feeling is the same for all of humanity. We can describe it as hot and every English speaking person would understand what we mean, and would agree. The statement, "The sun is hot" to be spoken as fact, is wrong, simply because it uses comparisons without actually comparing to any particular thing. The statement "The sun feels hot to all humans able to feel heat." can be spoken as fact, and is true (unless I've missed a loophole). Truth is not subjective, and if a statement that you feel is true isn't true for everyone, then it is not necessarily false, but it needs more details. I could say that "The Earth is big." and, I feel I'm safe to assume since no living or dead person could perceive the Earth as small from their own perspective, that you would agree that this statement would be safe to call factually accurate. I feel that this statement is lacking, if we wish to label it as objective truth, as there are so many things of so many various sizes, we can say instead "The Earth is much larger than Humans are, although there are many things in the Universe that are much larger than the Earth. This statement, is objectively true, containing enough facts to confirm it. Saying "The sun is hot, because I am colder" compares the feeling of the heat from the sun to yourself, not the temperature value, just the feeling of it, and is therefore correct. It does not imply that the temperature value of the sun varies depending on the temperature value of the speaker, only the feeling from it. Furthermore, we are only able to perceive the temperature of the sun as it is here on Earth, we cannot actually perceive the actual surface temperature of the sun itself. So, if we are outside on a cold winter day and the sun is out and it is not warming us particularly well, we could easily say it is not hot, by your standards of perception.
The fact that the sun has a relatively higher temperature than my normal body heat, I have an objective existence being colder than the sun.
The statement "The sun is hot, because I am colder" compares a relative statement (the sun is hot) with an objective statement (I am colder). The correct way to phrase that statement would be: I perceive the sun to be hot, because I am colder.
I suppose we really disagree on word meaning, where I see "is hot" I understand "feels hot". Since we have determined that hot doesn't refer to an actual temperature, just a subjective feeling.
You only dispute smaller and smaller parts of what I'm saying, soon there will be nothing left to dispute.
Since we have determined that hot doesn't refer to an actual temperature, just a subjective feeling.
A feeling that is fairly predictable to most humans.
You only dispute smaller and smaller parts of what I'm saying, soon there will be nothing left to dispute.
I only wish to point out that our perception is the extent of our reality. Anything outside of that (which we cannot perceive) couldn't have an effect on us.
per·cep·tion
/pərˈsepSHən/
Noun
1.The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2.The state of being or process of becoming aware of something in such a way.
Since there aren't any persons, living or dead, who would not classify the sun as "hot" and since we are discussing persons, to assert the sun is not hot would be incorrect.
We were never discussing if it could have an effect on us. Only that everything that feels hot is only so because it has a higher temperature than we feel. Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA), also called hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathy type IV — is an extremely rare inherited disorder of the nervous system which prevents the sensation of pain, heat, cold, or any real nerve-related sensations (including feeling the need to urinate); however, patients can still feel pressure. Any person with this disorder would not classify the sun as hot. So your arguement fails here.
Since there aren't any persons, living or dead, who would not classify the sun as "hot" and since we are discussing persons, to assert the sun is not hot would be incorrect.Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA)
CORRECTION: Since there aren't any persons, living or dead (who haven't been inflicted with a rare genetic disorder), who would not classify the sun as "hot" and since we are discussing persons, to assert the sun is not hot would be incorrect.
Although, I would argue they would classify the sun as hot, if only through repetition, even if they did not perceive it to be.
I suppose we really disagree on word meaning, where I see "is hot" I understand "feels hot". Since we have determined that hot doesn't refer to an actual temperature, just a subjective feeling.
Hot is a relative state, which can be supported with empirical evidence. Subjective truths are entirely dependent on perspective and cannot be proven; as long as you believe it, is it true.
If you're not comfortable using that type of logic, then why are you using it?
""If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source." I can't see a curve in the earth; it must be flat. I can't explain those lights in the sky; it must be god. Honestly, is that the type of logic you're comfortable using?
.
Sir TheBogle88,
.
I am not comfortable logic like that. I question everything, the Science Channel says to do so. What I am trying to say, if I wrote a love letter about the beauty of the sunset and how it reminded me of your eyes and other crap. . . . it's a perspective. Actual truth cannot be documented, only our perception of it. The idea of fact is not actual truth, but rather agreed upon reality." <-- LordChallen
Reality is a perspective. If you are looking up in the sky at night and the Moon is bright. . . . it is a light source. When I turn on a mercury vapor light, where exactly is the light coming from? The electricity excites the mercury particles causing them vibrate faster and faster, eventually giving off a strong glow. The Mercury isn't the light source, it's just a tuned oscillator excited to intense levels. The moon is basically the same. As a matter of perspective. . . . it's a light source, if not quite the light generator. <-- LordChallen
If you don't know when something is, it is perfectly valid to label it what you think it is. For many years the moon was considered to be green cheese. There was no other way to prove otherwise. It works very well, for the most part. At one point it might have even been consider_ed a fast.
When you don't know what something is, do the best you can.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
I can't agree with that. However, I wouldn't have this dude over for tea.
.
I am a little different then the other kids. I am LOOKING FOR GOD and not trying to save my soul. My soul is good and can handle anything God and the Devil wants to dish out. So I don't believe in the Bible because I'm trying to kiss-ass to God.
.
Ever since I was child the idea of God has deeply fascinated me. Science will never find God, at least, not the "living part." Some scientists have already stumbled upon one reality and that is that they foundation of the exists is pure mathematics. But they still don't get the "living truth" part.
.
When searching for God, you can dismiss any damn thing you want. But when you years trying to figure out a piece, when you find it, even if you don't know what to call it, you hold on to it.
Seriously? Reality cares? Since when? For every life form on the planet, there is a different concept of reality. I thinks perhaps you care that people agree with YOUR reality.
.
I found no god; guess he was right.
.
So according to that statement, you didn't look. Yet, you are convinced that he isn't real. Solid footing you have there.
I thinks perhaps you care that people agree with YOUR reality.
I don't care at all. It's when people try to claim the Bible can be trusted, or that Christianity is a peaceful religion, or when Muslims loose their shit, or any other religious person for any reason does something insane because of their religion. Weather you accept the fact or not, we're all living in the same reality. We're all experiencing the same gravity, the same sun light; we're all drinking the same water (literally).
Seek and ye shall find
He never said what I'd find. I found beauty in reality, finality. Our existence is fleeting and I intend to spend my time in reality. I don't care if you believe in god, but the Bible can't be trusted any more than any other religious text.
When you don't know what something is, do the best you can.
But that doesn’t mean your interpretation of what something could be is what it actually is. You gather more data, to the best of your ability. Since nothing can be done with 100% precision, there are well established margins of error and margins of operation to help establish when something is measured or operating correctly. If your result falls within those margins, you can be reasonably sure that your measurements are accurate. If you’re consistently getting results outside of those margins, through record keeping and diagnostic analysis, you should be able to pin-point the source of the error. If no errors are present, it is at that time you can assume you have data refuting a currently accepted fact.
But that doesn’t mean your interpretation of what something could be is what it actually is.
Come on, Mr. TheGogle88. Are you arguing with me or agreeing with me? I just said that it wasn't, but you do the best you can with it.
.
I said this a lot of times to the naysayers. We used to think that world was flat. Now we think it is round. But mathematics says that it something else.
.
I never assume I know what something actually is, just what I see as and what I can use it for.
When you don't know what something is, do the best you can.
I never assume I know what something actually is, just what I see as and what I can use it for.
Contradictory statements. By "doing the best you can," you're making an assumption. If you don't know, you don't know. You can gather more data, but otherwise you'll never know.
Contradictory statements. By "doing the best you can," you're making an assumption. If you don't know, you don't know. You can gather more data, but otherwise you'll never know.
.
I am not sure how I contradicted my self. What if I am an African Bushman and the Coke bottle falls from the sky? I am never going to know it is.
.
I can name it and learn what I am use it for, but I will never know what it is.
.
When you label something, you leave out literally thousands of point of perspective and information. If you go a Museum there is a guitar there that is valued at say $3 million. It looks rather ordinary, but then you see the sign, Elvis' Favorite Guitar. And you go, "Oh, now I get it."
.
But what does that really mean? It is a better guitar than another of its kind? No. What it is, actually has more to do with history. And what the history means is really dependent upon the person looking.
The coke bottle is still being used as a tool by a human; it's not so very different than intended.
That's the best you got? It's glass, a silicone compound, heated in ways a Bushman couldn't imagine, formed in ways he could imagine, filled with a liquid that had so sugar it would probably kill him, with machines that would blow his mind, carried into the sky with a machine he couldn't understand, and thrown from the window with a carelessness and disregard that would never be associated at tool of such power.
.
And all you got is, "humans are using."
.
Alright stretch the story a little bit. The monkey's found it.
So by your argument, if actual truth cannot be documented, then we should not consider the bible as actual truth. Jesus, then is not "the truth, the way and the light", he is "the perception of the truth, the way and the light".
So by your argument, if actual truth cannot be documented, then we should not consider the bible as actual truth. Jesus, then is not "the truth, the way and the light", he is "the perception of the truth, the way and the light".
.
No, the Bible should not be considered as "actual truth." Only an. . . . . uninspired person would do that. Jesus IS THE TRUTH, the way and the light. But more so in a spiritual way. And definitely not as documentation. Truth allows for infinite possibilities and how are you supposed to document that? And when I say "Jesus" I really mean that "concept" of Jesus. Whether Jesus was actually the Son of God or not, I don't know. There is a lot of cool symbolism around him.
.
If you have a little bit of imagination, you can take the Big Bang and the "Light" and merge it with the "Son of God" story. It's called "Reframe" in NLP. What you get is kind of fun.
.
For example: Bible says, "All things that were created were created by the Son of God." The light of the Big Bang fits this model. Christ is the light, Big Bang is the Light. There is other stuff, but it gets a little weird.
.
One thing that I some times interesting is Moses and the story of Creation. I've been on a few mystic trips and I've seen some of the things Moses talks about. But Moses said, "And God said, "Light there be Light." Did Moses have a concept of the Big Bang? People have messed with the Bible a lot. Moses was a rebel Egyptian Prince and had the skills of such. Did he know something that has gotten lost in history.
.
His story of creation is terribly far off if you forgive the word "day." People back then didn't really have a good concept of time. To say, "A really long time" they used the phrase "40 days and 40 nights."
.
In a world of illusion, such as this one, truth is sort of a "compass" that can put you in the right direction.
I'm not really interested in the ways I could imaginatively merge the biblical stories and cosmology. With enough imagination I could merge pokeman with the big bang if I wanted to. Imagination has few limits. Reality on the other hand has quite a few.
What I'm interested in is your viewpoint, a common philosophical stance that there is no truth only our perception of it. How can you say that, and then in the same breath say with certainty that jesus "IS THE TRUTH"? Isn't it only possible for you to perceive him to be the truth?
Wow, wtfiswrong, you know what is so ironic? We lack imagination, that is what is wrong. The universe is ours to command, all we have to do is have a little imagination. And everyone is fighting over what is real.
.
If you want to commit to the effort, I would happily explain it to you. But I'm not going to make the effort if you are just going to give me "retarded" phrase and give up.
.
Truth is stranger then fiction. Common phrase. But true.
.
Everything exists in phases. Some concepts are what we call 3 dimensional. Others are 4 dimensional. A 3D concept might be a building. A 4D concept might be the project time line. A 5D concept might be the Inspiration and Motivation that creates the building. All of these things must come together to make something work. Here in the present, the building might be in 5D form, having elements of memory from the past and inspiration from needs of the future, merged with a love of really tall things. All of the elements that create the inspiration and motivation are massive complex and do obey laws of the 3D or 4D worlds.
.
Then the building is taken from it's inspiration form and put on 2 dimensional form. Then the building is stretched across the 4th dimension and imagined as a finished product at sometime in the future. And sure enough, 10 years in the future, the building is done and is know in 3D form.
.
Depending upon what dimension you are looking at something, it really changes things. Jesus is a "high level" truth. Higher then even 5D. Within the image and message of Christ, the building blocks of the universe are demonstrated.
.
The universe is built upon functionality. One area that I take a leap faith is in the idea that all things have a sense of consciousness. In my belief, without a sense of consciousness, something cannot response to stimuli. Even if just a rock's atoms get excited in the presence of heat, means that those atoms have some sense of awareness, otherwise they couldn't react. For example: Metal reacts to magnetics, while wood does not.
.
If something "reacts" to something, then there is a "relationship." If it has no influence, then it is not real. Something can have influence over one thing, but not another. Two objects can exists but have no influence over each other. If they have NO influence on each other, then they do not exist to each other.
.
But with consciousness, influences can come in trillions of forms. Even if the Bible is technically untruth, it has massive influence in the conscious world. That influence is a real. And is that influence better never had, or do we appreciate it?
I'll have to give you credit man. You might be the first person I've met who has created an entire metaphysics in order to believe in what you want to believe in. It's creative. Truly, it is.
Drop the whole jesus-obsession and you might make a decent sci-fi writer.
Drop the whole jesus-obsession and you might make a decent sci-fi writer.
I'm not Jesus Obsessed. I am "Christ" obsessed.
I don't claim to fully understand what or who Christ is. I use the Christian symbolism only because it's what I know and that it sort of fits what I believe.
.
The universe is built upon order. I don't know how conscious non human objects are, but they are, as I said, somehow conscious, otherwise they could not be influenced. Christ is the basic layer or spirit of creation. Christ doesn't have be a form, but is perhaps rather a living spirit, sort of like Team Spirit. At the foundation of the universe must be some sort of functional power that is harmonious. This power could mathematical, but I also believe that it is alive.
.
But this power must be somehow "respectful and grateful." It is impossible for one object to actually possess another, so relationships must work on some sort of spirit of cooperation. Even warring spirits must have some sort of respect for each other and follow "rules" of sorts. Wars can give a people "identity" that they find precious.
.
Humans are a bit of "non-eternal" consciousness. At the base of us is eternal consciousness, but it isn't ours, that is why we are basically locked out of our subconscious. When we put off some the "natural man" things can transport or convert our consciousness over to a "respect and gratitude format" then our consciousness is more rooted in truth and is stable.
.
I have seen this as true. We don't own anything. We think we do, but in truth, we do not. Our bodies, our homes, our world, our cars, our children, even our identities are all a gift. We feel pain when we "lose something" because the concept of ownership is actually rooted in falseness. If we lived in gratitude for what we have, while we have it, we would not suffer the pain of loss. For example: Your mother and father are not your possessions. They are a gift of God and Nature. But because we have a sense of ownership, we feel pain if mother gives too much attention to the other kids, etc.
.
And respect. God has said, "he is only displeased when people fail to see his hand in all things." Which sort of means he is always pissed. JK. Absolutely everything in your life is a gift. Sometimes it is removed and we become angry, but it was a gift in the first place. No gift will last forever, for nothing lasts forever, except eternal consciousness.
.
If we learn to respect everything as a manifestation of truth, even if we don't understand it, we slowly learn to see truth as it happens and then why it happens. And when we see why it happens, we begin to see the perfection in it. Dysfunction is an illusion of consciousness. Dysfunction is a product of ignorance, but the dysfunction is IN the ignorance, not in the events. Everything is mathematically perfect.
.
But we don't see it, but so much of the "truth" in dimensions of reality that we cannot even perceive. It's not because it isn't there, right in front of our face, we just don't see it. Perhaps a child dies of cancer and the parents are angry at God for letting such a beautiful and innocent child die of such a hideous disease. But our children are dying of cancers because we have poisoned our environment in ways that we don't understand. And what better way to get that message across then a beautiful and innocent messenger that people will take notice of.
.
And it isn't as if God killed the child, we did!! We are not sure how, but we did. We would rather look for a cure then understand what we are doing to corrupt the environment. Medicine has its place, but something the answer is pretty obvious. Diabetes is largely a "too much sugar" issue, but because it sells food, we will never do away with it.
.
Until we learn to respect what is happening as a manifestation of truth and technically perfect, we will never understand the universe.
.
My dad was a cult leader of a fairly infamous cult. While I don't agree with him on many points, but I am deeply grateful that he taught me about God. I find that to be precious.
.
The Bible is an anchor for the God consciousness or awareness. It tells me that my ancestors thought he was important. I have come to agree with them.
We know it can't be trusted about the creation of the earth; it's version clearly violates almost every major scientific law established in human history. We know it can't be trusted to be a Moral compass, especially the Old Testament. Religions can never be trusted, as they are nothing more than very large and ornate cults operate using the same feelings of shame and confusion, the appeal of comfort & community. It's essentially a pyramid scheme mixed with mythology expertly re-crafted by the Vatican and other various religious groups to control what has turned into the largest voting bloc in the United States.
We know it can't be trusted about the creation of the earth; it's version clearly violates almost every major scientific law established in human history.
.
I just looked this up. I have read this shit in twenty years, but this some good shit.
Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
I have forgotten this stuff and found again on my own. God is pure mathematical truth. Such truth creates what is a called the "Living Truth" which is conscious and fits into every most tiny holes existence has to often. Truth is everywhere that is a "where." All the laws and principles of the universe could fit into a neutrino and room to spare. And such truth is conscious, and thus, God is omni-aware.
.
All things are created spiritually before the created physically. The earth was formless because it didn't have matter or shape. God says, "Light there be light." There are things about the Big Bang theory that defy logic. How did all of the matter in the universe condense into one place? Stars that collapse go Super Nova. How is it that all matter was able to condense like that without it all going Super Nova long before?
.
Second Issue. We used to think that space was infinite but now we realize that we were wrong. The universe is actually shaped like a donut and the 3 dimensional shapes we see are actually wrapped around something else. If you threw a baseball in space and waited, it would be eventually hit you in the back of the head.
.
The universe is not expanding into space, for the universe is the space. And if so? How did "space" condense down like that.
.
Third Issue. (and this is my last one because I want go mediate.) When the Big Bang happened, there Matter and Anti-Matter. Matter and Anti-Matter consume each other. When the explosion happened, the matter and anti-matter instantly consumed about 99.99% of the Matter. The universe is the 0.01% of that original mass. But how can Matter and Anti-Matter exist in the same space anyway. There is not evidence that when a star goes Supernova that this split of Matter and Anti-Matter happens.
.
Somewhere out there in the Void is another universe made of Anti-Matter that is basically our evil twin. Of the 0.01% left, 97% of that Energy and Matter instantly ascend to higher plane of existence because the blast so great. This is currently known as Dark Energy and Matter. We know it there, we just can see it. However scientists have been arguing for years over the idea of Gravity. Some say that it doesn't exist and upsets others, because obviously it does. But now more are willing to considered that it doesn't. Without Dark Energy the universe would have collapsed a long time, but Dark Energy seems actually be stretching the Universe. And some are proposing the gravity is actually a "transmitted" effect from the 4th dimension, (that place with all of the Dark Energy.)
.
So it is possible that life exists in the Dark Energy and Matter, that is actually 97% of our universe.
.
I could get into it more, but my point. It really isn't that far off what modern science is beginning to see. There is a hidden dimension within our universe that is huge, and it is "high energy" sort of like what a "heavens" would be like.
God is pure mathematical truth. Prove it, mathematically.
So it is possible that life exists in the Dark Energy and Matter, that is actually 97% of our universe. None of this points to the existence or even the likely probability of god. You see what you want to.
Believe me, I want their to be a benevolent being who wants to save my soul, but there is no reason for me to believe one actually exists.
but there is no reason for me to believe one actually exists.
.
Believe me, I want their to be a benevolent being who wants to save my soul, but there is no reason for me to believe one actually exists.
.
Here is a statement of bullshit. If you want it, go after it. Seek and you shall find. The reason you don't have a reason is you haven't sought a reason. I'm pretty versatile with my skill set. I'm pretty good at music, wood craft, computer art, construction, history, religion, philosophy, computer networking, radio frequency, electronic engineering, and stuff. If there is no God, or any kind of after life, what do I have to loose? However, I have to say, my search for God is the funnest thing I have ever attempted. I don't believe in God because I'm scared. My search for God is a little bit like flying in a plane. At 38,000 ft, if you crack up, you're dead, so don't worry about it.
.
If you want to believe in God, grow some balls and go find him. He doesn't force Himself. He comes to the humble, the loving, the kind, which sort of confusing why he works with me.
.
Oh and if 97% of the mass and energy of the universe is in a Higher Plane that we cannot see isn't a POINTER, then you are never going to be pointed in any direction.
.
And yes, you see what you want to. It's the coolest universe ever. And you know what is funny, you are seeing what you want to see, but you have the nerve call it "real."
If you want it, go after it. Seek and you shall find
I did seek, for 16 years. Eventually, I came to realize that god was invented by man to control the population, provide comfort for bronze age cultures, and as a place-holder explanation for the existence and creation of the universe. In light of the past 300 years, I can safely say that there is very probably no god. Furthermore, if there is a god, I would bet my life that it isn't the Abrahamic god, or a personal deity at all. That idea is borne out of arrogance; period.
If you want to believe in God, grow some balls and go find him.
If there were a god, I would have found him long ago.
Oh and if 97% of the mass and energy of the universe is in a Higher Plane that we cannot see isn't a POINTER...
How is the existence of dark matter and energy evidence for god? You theists speak as if atheists assume they know everything, when in fact we are constantly in awe of what we don't know. Just because we don't know the mechanics or physics behind every mechanism and force in the universe does not mean it must have been god. This is bronze age logic.
And you know what is funny, you are seeing what you want to see, but you have the nerve call it "real."
And you're not seeing anything at all, and you have the gall to call it real. Seems we're both in a boat called ignorance. The only difference is, I'm not pretending that some deity put us on this boat to care, love, and judge us.
